Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

TNG had some flaws but its message was not among them. It's a little sick that "Mankind may not be inherently violent, greedy and awful" is considered preachy and arrogant.

It's preachy when the end to violence means doing things like leaving your citizens at the mercy of your enemies (Fed colonists in the demilitarized zone), revealing military secrets to your enemies (namely the creation of a fed phasing cloak) or having to beg more violent races to do your fighting for you when violence actually becomes necesary (the dominion war). It's arrogant when your method of eliminating greed is eliminating money completely and creating a galactic nanny state. (We're taking away money and giving you replicators because we know what's best for you.)

Trekker4747 wrote:

Things should at least make sense, be consistent and, well, not fall apart when thought about for more than a moment. I mean what if in an episode Picard just snapped his fingers, grew wings, and then started riding a magical pony through the galaxy. Hey, who cares as long as it entertains!

But that's our point. Every series of Trek has had episodes with situations that are just as stupid. Kirk and company confronted a solar-system sized amoeba. Ent-D had a baby. A runabout in DS9 got shrunk down to a christmas tree ornament. Janeway and paris turned into monitor lizards and had little monitor lizards. T'Pol turned into a drug addict by shooting up a molten alien alloy.

Gene Roddenberry once said "make it about the characters", and trek writers then and since have mostly taken that to mean "Hey, it really doesn't have to make sense. it's about the characters."

And if Picard grew wings and flew a magical pony around the galaxy i'd just call the kids from the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon because that would make him Venger 2.0.

Being entertaining isn't a blank-check to do whatever the hell you want. You have to at least have it make sense and, ideally, an impact.

But making it about the characters is that blank check, as I've just described.

I'll accept a "virus" or other infection that can "de-evolve" people (or I guess more accurately mutate people into animals by scrambling DNA.) But it becomes harder and harder to accept it when you forget such an idea has consequences.

Which is this episode's biggest problem. It completely ignores the consequences this thing would have. Like I said up-thread there are civilians and children on the ship. De-evolved too. This de-evolution reduced the sizes of people's brains. Stuff you just don't "get back."

And it's not the first time trek characters have avoided serious consequences. Eliminating a consequence is the sole reason The Search For Spock was made!

But the biggest thing is the humor moment at the end of episode that completely shrugs away everything that happened. Beverly's reconstructive surgery, Worf and Riker killing people, that people ARE dead. That this incident must have had some impact on the children and civilians on the ship but, no, we just have a funny little laugh and forget about all of that.

Look, all you're doing is complaining about stuff that exists franchise-wide, not just in this episode. Once you realize that, you should easily be able to take the ep for what it is, a fun next generation horror movie.

__________________"Understand, Commander: That torpedo did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull, and I was never here."

Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy

Re: The hate at "Genesis"

Admiral2 wrote:

But making it about the characters is that blank check, as I've just described.

"Genesis" doesn't work on any level, science or character. As already pointed out, even ignoring the laugh-out-loud so-called science the entire story hinges upon, the characters act like idiots. There are some TNG episodes I could think of that I think are good character episodes, but "Genesis" ain't one of them. I'm hard-pressed to think how "Genesis" could even be considered a good character episode.

Look, all you're doing is complaining about stuff that exists franchise-wide, not just in this episode.

The bad stuff that exists franchise-wide doesn't make "Genesis" any better.

Once you realize that, you should easily be able to take the ep for what it is, a fun next generation horror movie.

It doesn't even make a good horror movie, unless me laughing at the TV screen is the sign of a good horror movie.

KaraBear wrote:

isn't the point of tv to entertain? if the science isn't comletly accurate who cares?

The bad stuff that exists franchise-wide doesn't make "Genesis" any better.

But it does make Genesis "typical."

Admiral2 wrote:

A runabout in DS9 got shrunk down to a christmas tree ornament.

Coincidentally available in Hallmark stores in time for the Holidays?

Hober Mallow wrote:

What, I'm responsible for the violent death of Ensign Noname?

Except they weren't responsible, they were under the influence of the "T-Cell" infection. When it comes to the deaths aboard the ship, the only responsible party was Doctor Crusher.

JirinPanthosa wrote:

Evolution goes in the direction that increases survival and reproduction odds at the time in the environment you're in. It's not some predetermined track.

The episode The Chase says otherwise, "evolution" in the Star Trek universe, the development of intelligent lifeforms, was predetermined.

TNG had some flaws but its message was not among them. It's a little sick that "Mankind may not be inherently violent, greedy and awful" is considered preachy and arrogant.

TOS did it much better, Humans didn't "evolve" somehow in to completely different people psychologically. We were still inherently violent (but won't kill today), greedy (wealthy miners), and occasional awful (we'll kill half the population, so the other half won't starve).

This episode, however, was badly written and badly staged.

It was interestingly written, and I thought the staging was creepy in a good way.

Hober Mallow wrote:

But how does Barclay "devolve" into a spider?

Miles O'Brien had a pet tarantula named Christine, Barclay interacted with it a little over a year before Genesis, this might in some way have influenced his change into a spider. Maybe it bit him at some point.

Spider spit.

Trekker4747 wrote:

Individuals do not evolve, species do. Over the course of EONS.

That not completely true, evolution includes not just adaptation but also mutation and other mechanisms too. It is possible for mutation to occur within an individual, and so individuals can in fact evolve.

That not completely true, evolution includes not just adaptation but also mutation and other mechanisms too. It is possible for mutation to occur within an individual, and so individuals can in fact evolve.

At the risk of picking nits (I agree with most of what you have to say ) This last statement is half true. Individuals mutate, species evolve.

__________________One day soon, man is going to be able to harness incredible energies, energies that could ultimately hurl us to other worlds in... some sort of spaceship.

Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy

Re: The hate at "Genesis"

T'Girl wrote:

Except they weren't responsible, they were under the influence of the "T-Cell" infection. When it comes to the deaths aboard the ship, the only responsible party was Doctor Crusher.

That was exactly my point. Dr. Crusher, who ends the episode cracking jokes.

KaraBear wrote:

if I really wanted a science lesson I would watch a documentary, not a science FICTION tv show

You misunderstand what science fiction is and what it's not. There must be some standard for the science of the story, otherwise it's not science fiction; it's fantasy. But even fantasy must have some logic and consistency to it.

I just happened to read this bit from Isaac Asimov in his book, "Magic," and immediately thought of the above quote in this thread. It concerns the fallout from Asimov's panning "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" for its bad science and faulty logic.

...one and all, they came down to the same plaintive cry, "Why do you criticize its lack of science, Dr. Asimov? It's just science fiction."

God, how that stings! I've spent a lifetime loving science fiction, and now I find that you must expect nothing of something that's just science fiction.

It's just science fiction so it's allowed to be silly, and childish, and stupid. It's just science fiction so it doesn't have to make sense. It's just science fiction, so you must ask nothing more of it than loud noise and flashing lights.

That's the harm of Close Encounters: that it convinces tens of millions that that's what just science fiction is

I don't love the episode, but I don't hate it. It scared the crap out of my seven year old self when it first aired. I couldn't watch it until many years later. So for that, it kind of does have a special place in my memory.

It's interesting what things can scare us when we're kids.

I think my first exposure to TNG was when I was 8 years old, and it was a shot from "A Measure of a Man" when Riker was snapping Data's arm off to prove he's a machine.

I didn't understand what Data was, all I know is that as a kid, I saw a big bearded guy snap the arm off another guy, and it was robotic.